FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an ITC case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include one new petition regarding Covered Business Method review of patents, a reply brief and two amicus briefs in support of a petition related to patent damages and the impact of USPTO invalidations of patents on pending infringement litigation, and another reply brief in favor of a petition related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights coverage by the Washington Post and Politico of Monday’s oral arguments in a case addressing whether the federal government charges excessive fees for accessing federal court documents and a comment on the need for the Federal Circuit to use en banc rehearings too resolve core patent questions such as those involving claim construction.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in related tax cases filed in the Court of Federal Claims, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include one new petition related to obviousness, one response to a petition related to design patents, two requests for responses to petitions related to Arthrex and transfer, two amicus briefs in support of petitions related to the written description and enablement requirements, and the denial of one petition related to Arthrex and obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and a nonprecedential order denying interlocutory review in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a discussion of patent eligibility cases pending at the Federal Circuit, a comment on the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of interlocutory review of a district court’s exclusion of all of a patent owner’s expert testimony related to damages, and a note about the Federal Circuit’s recent use of general knowledge in an analysis of patent law’s non-obviousness requirement.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions.

This week (and Tuesday of next week) the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 56 cases. Amicus briefs were filed, however, in only one of these cases. That case, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, has drawn attention because it is a challenge to the user fees charged by the federal judiciary for access to court records via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Notably, it has attracted five amicus briefs filed by a combined 51 third parties including various companies, media organizations, library associations, non-profit advocacy organizations, retired federal judges, and a retired U.S. senator.